ORDER : (Prasanna B. Varale, CJ.) All these complaints have substantially similar facts & grievances. All they allege violation of a common order of the Co-ordinate Bench made on 18.02.2016 whereby, W.P Nos.51205-51252/2015 (S-KAT) along with connected cases came to be disposed off quashing orders of recovery from the salary of Writ Petitioners. Liberty was reserved to such of the Petitioners from whom already recovery was made, to seek reimbursement/refund by approaching the appropriate authorities. 2. Very importantly, the grievance of the complainants revolves around another part operative portion of the said order which reads as under: "In view of the stand taken by Government that the petitioners are eligible for the post of Associate Professors from September to November, 2013, the order passed by the Government dated 29.01.2014 rescinding its earlier order dated 18.10.2012 and 11.03.2013 has become infructuous. Hence, there is no need to pass any order in this regard." Learned advocates appearing for the Complainants vehemently argue that the above text of the order coupled with observations at para 29, constitute an undertaking given to the Court that the Complainants would be redesignated as Associate Professors and despite demand the same has not been complied with; since there is no justification whatsoever for the said non-compliance, the same is a wilful disobedience and therefore, the accused respondents would be summoned & tried for the offence punishable under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. After service of notice, the accused persons have entered appearance through the learned HCGP and resist the complaints by filing the Statement of Objections in CCC No.1026/2023 and the same has been adopted in rest of the cases. The gist of submission of learned HCGP is that there is no such undertaking and in any event there is no unconditional undertaking; for the so-called redesignation one of the essential conditions is the candidates possessing a PhD; that qualification being lacked, the complaint of wilful default/non-compliance has no substance. So contending, learned HCGP seeks dismissal of all these complaints. 4. So contending, learned HCGP seeks dismissal of all these complaints. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the complaint papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (i) A careful perusal of operative portion of the Division Bench order does not inspire us that any unconditional undertaking was given by the accused persons so that for its violation all they can be hauled up for contempt action. Paragraph 29 of the Division Bench order reproduces the tabular column at item No.53 of the AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016; a reading of the paragraph gives an impression that there is no requirement of PhD for the redesignation in question. However, a deeper examination unmistakably shows that such a concession was confined to such of the Assistant Professors who were redesignated with effect from 01.01.2006. Admittedly, all the complainants gained entry to the positions only much later and therefore, they cannot draw any milk from the said Notification or the observations made in paragraph 29, as rightly contended by the learned HCGP. (ii) Learned HCGP drew our attention to the AICTE Notification dated 08.11.2012 whereby, Regulations - 2012 have been framed under Section 23(1) read with Section 10(i) & (v) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Though the title clause of the Regulations given an impression that they are confined to cases of Career Advancement Scheme, a bare look at the text of Regulation 3 dispels the same; they are applicable to other promotions as well. Regulation 3.8 reads as under: "Assistant Professor completing three years of teaching in the grade of Rs. 8000 (stage 3) shall be eligible, subject to the qualifying conditions and the API based PBAS requirements prescribed by these Regulations, to move to the Pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 with next higher grade of Rs. 9000 (stage 4) and to be designated as Associate Professor. However those joining the Service after 5th March 2010 shall have also earned Ph.D in addition to above mentioned requirements to move to the stage 4." (Emphasis is ours) Admittedly, the Complainants do not have a Ph.D degree. Whatever observations made by the DB inter alia in para 29 read with sandwiched part of the operative portion of the order have to be construed in the light of legal requirement. Whatever observations made by the DB inter alia in para 29 read with sandwiched part of the operative portion of the order have to be construed in the light of legal requirement. (iii) The last contention of learned advocates appearing for the Complainants that Section 2(a) of the 1971 Act defines "contempt of court" and Section 2(b) defines what is a civil contempt, which is very broadly texted and therefore, non-compliance of an undertaking given to the Court amounts to contempt, is true. Learned HCGP also did not much dispute this legal position. However, what he contends and in our opinion rightly is that a particular stand of a litigant before the Court per se may not amount to an undertaking unless there are demonstrable elements of being bound over. Whether a particular stand amounts to an undertaking depends upon a host of factors which need to be gathered from reading the entire judgement. A piece meal approach would not help. Even if it is assumed that the stand of the Government in the subject writ petitions amounted to an undertaking, the same is qualified that the candidates should possess Ph.D. If that qualification was satisfied, arguably the Complainants would have had a case of contempt. (iv) Learned counsel Smt. Vaishali Hegde having argued the matter vociferously, as she appreciable does always, submits that a copy of Compliance Additional Affidavit filed by the accused has not been shared with her. However, learned HCGP at once retorted that a copy was sent by email to the said Complainants. Therefore, much deliberations in this regard is not needed. Added, we have carefully gone through every bit of the file; ordinarily a contempt is a matter between Court & the contemnors and counsel appearing for the parties have a facilitative role. In the above circumstances, these complaints of contempt are dropped and notice is discharged. The Complainants are at liberty to work our their grievance elsewhere in accordance with law and in that connection, all contentions of the parties are kept open.